Recent Articleshttp://prospect.org/authors/218884/rss.xml
The American Prospect - articles by authorenGillibrand Steps Up for Working Womenhttp://prospect.org/article/gillibrand-steps-working-women
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p>At the end of September, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand <a href="http://www.americanprogressaction.org/events/2013/09/19/74757/sen-kirsten-gillibrand-on-womens-economic-security/">announced her Opportunity Plan</a> promoting progressive economic policies for women. The plan includes Gillibrand’s proposed FAMILY Act. The legislation builds upon the 1993 Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which allows certain workers—public-sector employees or private-sector ones who have been employed for at least a year—to take unpaid leave for child care or health reasons.</p>
<p>Under Gillibrand’s proposed legislation, all workers—no matter the size of their company, duration of their employment, or number of hours worked in the past year—would be able take up to 12 weeks of paid leave. Modeled after state additions to temporary disability insurance (TDI) programs in California, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, her plan would require 0.2 percent deposits of employee earnings to be matched by employer contributions in a Social Security Administration fund. Workers would then receive up to 66 percent of their earnings when they took family and medical leave. The legislation, which was developed by the National Partnership for Women &amp; Families (NPWF) in collaboration with the Center for American Progress (CAP), <a href="http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2009/06/pdf/fmla.pdf">originated in a 2009 paper</a> by CAP’s Chief Economist Heather Boushey.</p>
<p>NPWF also developed the legislation that became the FMLA, and has been working on complimenting the law since it was enacted 20 years ago. “We always had in our mind that the FMLA was the first step toward changing our culture, changing our policies, and moving us toward a society where workers would be able to take a paid leave,” says Vicki Shabo, director of Work and Family Programs at NPWF. “We recognized, even back then, that unpaid leave wasn’t going to be a financially sustainable option for a lot of families. And in fact, the number one reason that people who need Family and Medical Leave Act leave, but don't take it, is that they can’t afford it.”</p>
<p>But while the FAMILY Act would do much to address the inadequacies of the FMLA, there are many problems that the law wouldn’t solve. Pregnant workers in particular require further legislation to protect them both while they’re still working and once they’ve taken leave, paid or not. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 (PDA) made the most common employer actions against pregnant workers illegal, such as refusal to hire, but the law doesn’t cover other forms of discrimination, like failing to provide accommodations for pregnant workers in strained physical condition. </p>
<p>In fact, when it comes to pregnant, low-wage workers, the FMLA can be used to detrimental effect: Rather than provide accommodations for expectant mothers, employers sometimes force them to take unpaid leave during their pregnancies, leaving the employee without leave time to use once they give birth, according to a <a href="http://www.nwlc.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pregnant_workers.pdf">recent report</a> from the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC). The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA)—developed by the NWLC in partnership with Democratic Congressman Jerrold Nadler, NPWF, and a number of other organizations—would require employers to make accommodations for pregnant workers—similar to those that are currently required for disabled workers under the American Disabilities Act of 1990. The PWFA has been introduced in both the House, by Nadler, and Senate, by Robert Casey Jr., a Pennsylvania Democrat. Gillibrand is a cosponsor of the bill.</p>
<p>There are still other ways in which the current and proposed legislation leaves workers vulnerable. Though it includes an anti-retaliation provision, the FAMILY Act does not require an employer to hold a worker’s job while they take paid leave. And though the FMLA includes a job-protection provision, the law doesn’t cover about <a href="http://go.nationalpartnership.org/site/DocServer/DOL_FMLA_Survey_2012_Key_Findings.pdf?docID=11862">40 percent of American workers</a> in the private sector who have recently started a new job, work part-time, or work for a small employer. According to Shabo, because the FAMILY Act would act as social insurance rather than a labor standard, it isn’t meant to supplant the FMLA. “Ideally, we see FMLA expansion moving on a parallel track, so that we’re also providing greater access to the FMLA for folks,” Shabo says. She did note, however, that Rhode Island became the first state to pass paid insurance leave legislation with a job-protection provision earlier this year—though the law only allows a maximum of four weeks of paid leave.</p>
<p>Gillibrand’s plan to introduce the FAMILY Act comes at a promising time for paid-leave legislation. In addition to recent adoptions of paid insurance leave programs, the push for paid sick days—though distinct from paid family and medical leave—has led to new municipal legislation in Seattle, San Francisco, and, just in the last six months, Portland, Jersey City, and New York City. Connecticut became the first state to enact paid sick-leave legislation in 2011.</p>
<p>“It’s harder to win than you would think, but we’re starting to see momentum,” says Jen Kern, national issues campaign director for Working Families, also noting that “we’ve historically seen the momentum for these kinds of policies happen first at the state level.” Kern is optimistic about the role progressive economic policies will play in the upcoming elections, both on a state and national level. “[Gillibrand and others in Congress] see this as a women’s economic security agenda building toward the 2014 elections, so I think this is all part of that effort, and it’s very timely.”</p>
<p>Though paid sick leave and paid family and medical leave have seen success on the state and municipal level, it will likely take years for the FAMILY Act—which Gillibrand’s office plans to introduce in the Senate later this month—to be enacted. <a href="http://www.nationalpartnership.org/issues/work-family/history-of-the-fmla.html">The FMLA was introduced in Congress every year from 1984 until it was finally passed and enacted in 1993</a>. It was passed and vetoed by President George H.W. Bush in both 1991 and 1992. The current obstructionist political climate and the GOP’s record on women-friendly legislation doesn’t bode well for ease of passage either. As recently as April of this year, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/11/paycheck-fairness-act_n_3063804.html">House Republicans blocked a vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act</a>, which would extend the protections of the Equal Pay Act and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and is one of the bills Gillibrand supports in her Opportunity Plan. The bill’s 2011 failure to receive a Senate vote after being passed by the House even prompted <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/12/weekly-address-womens-history-month-highlights-presidents-resolve-pass-p">a statement from Obama</a> to “keep up the fight to pass the reforms in that bill.”</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">Despite congressional reluctance, recent studies have found strong support for these policies. A </span><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/20/paid-sick-leave-poll_n_3471789.html" style="line-height: 1.538em;">June HuffPost/YouGov poll</a><span style="line-height: 1.538em;"> found that 74 percent of Americans support paid sick-leave policies, and </span><a href="http://www.nationalpartnership.org/news-room/press-releases/new-poll-shows-bipartisan-mandate.html" style="line-height: 1.538em;">a 2012 poll</a><span style="line-height: 1.538em;"> conducted by Lake Research Partners and the Tarrance Group found bipartisan support for paid family- and medical-leave policies, with 73 percent of Republicans and 96 percent of Democrats in support. The goals of the Paycheck Fairness Act are popular as well: a </span><a href="https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/paycheck_fairness_act_coalition_polling_data_with_graphs_2012.pdf" style="line-height: 1.538em;">2010 Lake Research poll found</a><span style="line-height: 1.538em;"> that 72 percent of respondents supported a law to “provide women more tools to get fair pay in the workplace.” The popularity of these policies isn’t surprising to Kern. “Workers and their families are dealing with a 21st century economy but we have mid-20th century workplace standards,” she said. “The world has changed and our workplace policies have not.”</span></p>
</div></div></div>Thu, 14 Nov 2013 13:29:57 +0000219194 at http://prospect.orgJordan LarsonThe New Pornographers http://prospect.org/article/new-pornographers
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden"><div class="field-items"><div class="field-item even"> <p><span class="dropcap">C</span>alifornia passed a law last month to prevent a form of online harassment known as “revenge porn”—explicit images almost exclusively of women posted online by their former partners. The victims of revenge porn are often left without recourse, ignored or extorted by website hosts, and discounted by local authorities who either lack awareness of federal cyber stalking and harassment laws or see little point in pressing charges. Frustrated by lack of recourse, campaigns such as End Revenge Porn have started fighting for state legislation to criminalize the practice. Until the passage of California’s law, New Jersey was the only state that had criminalized revenge porn, and a New York legislator just announced his plan to <a href="http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/196299/senator-proposes-to-make-revenge-porn-illegal-in-ny/">propose similar legislation </a>last week.</p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">Revenge porn is only one form of online harassment that disproportionately affects women and often goes unreported. The attacks can range from threatening and degrading messages to the posting of personal information like home addresses and Social Security numbers.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">Danielle Keats Citron, a law professor at the University of Maryland, has written extensively on the way online harassment affects women and sexual, racial, and religious minorities, and our need to adopt a cyber civil-rights agenda. Her book </span><em style="line-height: 1.538em;">Cyber Civil Rights: Combating Hate in the Digital Age</em><span style="line-height: 1.538em;"> is forthcoming from Harvard University Press.</span></p>
<h4><strong>What kind of impact do you think the California law will have on how society views revenge porn and online harassment?</strong></h4>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">It has brought important light to the aspect of online harassment that can be really devastating for victims. So in that regard, it's created an important conversation that states are now having. It sounds like Maryland, Wisconsin, Washington state, Florida, other states are considering [legislation].</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">The downside of that legislation is that I think it clearly needs to be amended.</span></p>
<p>The California law wouldn't cover images that are consensually shared with another person in a trusting relationship where there's an expectation of confidentiality. And I think that's a shame, because we sort of overlook what is, no doubt, really harmful, economically and socially.</p>
<h4><strong style="line-height: 1.538em;">What are some other forms of online harassment that take place?</strong></h4>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">Revenge porn is just one tool in a harasser's toolbox. Often you see victims being threatened with sexual violence, or with any kind of physical violence. The abuse can take forms of threats of violence, privacy invasions, naked pictures and doctored photographs, revelations of someone's home address. It can be lies that suggest someone's interested in anonymous sex. Individuals set up whole sites devoted to other individuals, to basically burning their reputation and ensuring they basically have no chance of getting employed.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">So when the first ten pages of a Google search for your name are about how you’re a bitch, have herpes, shouldn't be trusted or are financially irresponsible, it's not that employers believe the information, it's that you don't want to hire someone who could put your own reputation at risk.</span></p>
<h4><strong>In your work, you’ve pushed for a cyber civil-rights agenda. What does that entail?</strong></h4>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">I think of this as a civil-rights problem for two reasons: the identity of the victims and the messages the abuse sends. Statistically, 70 percent or more of victims are female. There's also a high percentage of individuals who are sexual minorities, who face this kind of abuse. And it's not that men aren't harassed—they are. But what's really fascinating is that the kind of abuse they face is very similar to the sort of demeaning messages that female victims face: They're accused of being child rapists, of being sexual predators, of being gay, even if they're not; impersonated, and suggested that they're interested in anal sex. It sort of turns the narrative upside-down. They're shamed for their sexuality.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">You think of it as discrimination or a civil-rights problem because of the demeaning messages it’s sending. The abuse is sexualized, it’s humiliating, it’s sexually threatening, it’s taking stereotypes and humiliating people based on characteristics they can't change about themselves.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">It's like we went back 30 years, and the response that we see to online harassment is so similar to the ways society used to trivialize and write off sexual harassment in the workplace and domestic violence. “Yeah, turn your computer off, boys will be boys, it’s no big deal.” Same way with sexual harassment in the workplace, it was, “Y</span><span style="line-height: 1.538em; ">eah, it’s just a perk for men to enjoy.” As much as we made some progress with sexual harassment in the workplace and changing social attitudes, we have a long way to go about online harassment.</span></p>
<p><strong style="font-size: 1.154em; line-height: 1.538em;">You mentioned in one of your papers about the cyber civil-rights agenda that there are many of laws already on the books that make this behavior illegal, but often times victims are turned away by law enforcement. What changes do you think need to be made to specifically combat online harassment?</strong></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">Criminal harassment and stalking laws are on the book and can be enforced, but they’re under-enforced. There's a huge gap in our understanding of the application of civil-rights laws. Anti-discrimination laws [such as] Title 7 [of the Civil Rights Act of 1964] are just applied to the workplace and for employers. The kind of abuse that you see [online] has economic effects, but the perpetrators have no responsibility. They're not an employer, though they’re having a devastating impact on someone's career. We have civil-rights laws on the books that cover threats but only for racial minorities. We should expand it to gender, because that's so often targeted with online threats that cause economic disadvantage. There are a number of possibilities, but I think a truly robust cyber civil-rights initiative would inevitably not only cover the enforcement of existing laws but the adoption of ones that don't cover areas where people are really left unprotected.</span></p>
<p><strong style="font-size: 1.154em; line-height: 1.538em;">How does the First Amendment end up interacting with these laws? I know that's been a big concern in getting these laws passed and considered.</strong></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">The First Amendment is often thought of as a conversation stopper. The Internet is depicted as the virtual town square where anyone can be a town crier and say anything they want. In fact, First Amendment doctrine in the court does not protect threats, intentional infliction of emotional distress, purely private matters of private individuals, defamation when it doesn't involve a public figure, solicitation, [or] criminal harassment.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">We think of free speech, and what it’s all about is we want to prevent the law from chilling important discussions about public or even cultural affairs. But these kinds of targeted campaigns against individuals don’t send a message that we have a legitimate interest in talking about. They’re efforts to silence individuals, to terrorize them, intimidate them, and ensure that they have no employment. I think it’s worth an important and hard conversation. It’s not easy, the First Amendment, but I think in balancing the interests at stake for the victims, we can weigh them on the scale and say we’re not chilling speech that's ultimately valuable for speakers and listeners.</span></p>
<h4><strong>As a high-profile woman very much in favor of Internet regulation, have you been subject to the online harassment that you’re battling?</strong></h4>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.538em;">It's interesting because as I've been writing about it, I got interested in it because of the attacks on the Yale law students, and I have a close relationship with one of the targeted victims and then got to know Kathy Sierra [a former technology blogger who was a victim of online harassment], and that was in 2007 when I started being interested in this. And as I've gone on, I have received e-mails threatening sexual violence, but they have not been persistent, and it's not often. But all of my friends say, you know, you're next, kid. I have received some online abuse, but I've been lucky in the way that Holly [Jacobs, founder of the End Revenge Porn campaign] and Kathy and all of those individuals I talked to [weren't]—so far so good.”</span></p>
</div></div></div>Mon, 07 Oct 2013 12:20:02 +0000218885 at http://prospect.orgJordan Larson